Worries about Ethics
Norms & Descriptions
Hume’s gap
• In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met
with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds
for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and
establishes the being of a God, or makes observations
concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am
surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition
that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This
change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last
consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses
some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it
shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time
that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether
inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction
from others, which are entirely different from it.
The problem
• The shift Hume describes runs from descriptions
of the world (God’s existence, etc.) to claims
about how things should be or ought to be.
• This is an important shift, because there is no
obvious or simple relation between these.
• Sometimes (and in some respects) the way
things are (the descriptive truth) is the way they
should be (normatively correct).
• Sometimes (and in some respects) the way
things are is a way they should not be
(normatively unacceptable).
So how are these related?
• Some theories of should/ought/etc. (the
normative, in general) try to give a descriptive
account of what makes ‘A should be the case’ or
‘We ought to do x in circumstances C’ true.
• Such an account reduces the normative to the
descriptive.
• One such reduction is the Divine Command
Theory, according to which what someone ought
to do is whatever God commands.
The Euthyphro
• There is a standard objection (due to Plato) to this view.
• It begins with the question ‘Is God’s command really
what makes something right or wrong, or does she
command what she commands because it is the right
thing to do?’
• If God commands what she does because it is right, then
there must be something about it that makes it right,
something other than her giving that command. That is,
the Divine command theory is false!
• But if God’s command to do x makes x the right thing to
do, this seems oddly arbitrary. God (in principle) could
command anything, no matter how absurd, and it would
simply and automatically be the right thing to do.
God as ideal agent
• People often respond to the Euthyphro by saying that
God, of course, being good (perfectly so!), would never
knowingly command anything that was wrong, and would
always command what is right.
• Further, being omniscient, God always knows what’s
right or wrong.
• So God’s commands will never lead us astray: by
definition, whatever God commands is the right thing to
do.
• However, this just takes the first option: there is some
separate, prior fact about what’s right or wrong, and,
God (being perfect) recognizes this fact and responds to
it as an ideal agent would.
Upshot
• The upshot of this position is that it’s not God’s
command that really makes things right (or
wrong).
• Instead, God commands what she does
because she knows that it’s right.
• At least on this view, the fact that God
commands we do x (in circumstances C) is a
good sign (a perfect one, in fact) that doing x in
C is right.
• But this leads us to the next question: How
should we go about figuring out what’s right or
wrong?
Alternatives
• On this theory, God’s command is a perfect
guide. But how should we go about deciding
what it is that God commands? Directly (by
looking for evidence that God commands that
we do x in C) or indirectly (by looking for
evidence that doing x in C is the sort of thing (i.e.
a good thing) that God commands?
• God (being omniscient) knows everything too.
So in principle we can go about studying the
world by the ‘direct’ route of asking what God
believes about it. Whatever God believes will be
the truth!
Matters of fact
• But on most matters of fact, at least, trying to
figure out what’s true by asking ‘what does God
believe about this’ is pointless.
• After all, simply looking at the world and studying
the facts works pretty well, as far as we can tell.
• And furthermore, we don’t have any useful
evidence for what God believes about (say) the
melting point of lead other than what we gain by
measuring the temperature of lead as it melts (or
freezes).
The Direct Route to God’s
Command?
• Is there a direct route to knowing what God has
commanded?
• The obvious answer is to look at some ‘holy
book’ or other tradition of religious authority.
• Of course, this raises a serious problem: Which
book? Which tradition?
• And it’s a problem that matters, at least insofar
as correct religious observance is concerned.
Deuteronomy 13: 6-10 (RSV)
• If your brother, the son of your mother, or your
son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom
who is as your own soul, entices you secretly,
saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which
neither you nor your fathers have known,…you
shall not yield to him, nor shall your eye pity him,
nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal
him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be
first against him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people. (&
likewise for entire cities that have been led
astray—13: 12-16)
The point
• This is not to suggest that Christianity or
Judaism today actually acts in accordance with
this demand.
• But only to show that it’s not simple to decide
just how a traditions’ teachings should be
understood, if we find such murderous
declarations unacceptable.
• And if we shift to thinking in terms of what we
believe a benevolent, kind, good God would
really want us to do, then we’re pursuing the
indirect route: looking at the world, and at
human beings, and trying to decide what’s best.
The Indirect Route
• So is there an indirect route to evidence about
what God commands?
• God is supposed to be good, benevolent, etc.
• We have some notion of what this means when
we apply it to people.
• If we pursue that understanding, refining it and
building on it (examining what sorts of things
good people do when they’re not acting out of
character or in ignorance, and so on), then
maybe we will have a good starting point, at
least!